Indeed

Submitted by Peter Herz (United States), Aug 18, 2011 at 19:42

Dr. Pipes, I can somewhat understand the petty legalism involved in echoing the 1947 UN resolution, even if our adherence to the international status of Jerusalem has earned us no brownie points in the Islamic world. However, I join my voice to those who say that the Obama administration's foreign policy is a disaster.

We're already talking about how "moderate" the Muslim Brotherhood is. Doubtlessly, this is only to cover our own t---s when it wins in Egypt and Syria (putting a brave face on a horrible situation). But even if I think that the Assads were and are pretty odious, and that the only good thing that can be said about Moammar Qaddafi is that he looks as if he might be the natural son of either Harpo or Chico Marx, I still think that our government is foolish to take sides in either Libya or Syria. I've also been appalled at how our "brilliant" SecState Hillary Clinton and her minions reciprocated a British state gift of historic consequence with a bunch of DVD's that can't be used on European systems; snubs towards Poland and Israel as well; obsequiousness towards Beijing; and appallingly ignoring issues such as the continuance of slavery in places like Mauretania.

While we're at it, let's push for a US foreign policy that will seek to at least publicly shame, if not pressure, the Arab states over their refusal to naturalize the victims of an-Nakba and their descendants down to the third and fourth generations. THIS issue is one that makes me think that the Arab world, not Israel, is the obstacle to ME peace.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".